Poll of the Day > Americans arguing Electoral College vs. Popular Vote are missing the REAL issue!

(+) Yeah! (+)

People have been complaining about the "Electoral College vs. Popular Vote" issue, but there is a much deeper, more SEVERE flaw in our elections. The reason we ended up with the two most piss-poor examples of humanity as candidates in the first place (Trump and Hillary) is very simple. THE PRIMARIES! Think about it...

The USA's traditional two-party primary system is dividing us further and further (and will ultimately kill us if it remains). This is due to the reality that voters absolutely hate, above all else, to compromise. Therefore, in our own primaries we tend to pick the person that champions our beliefs the most! So, this "Primary" system ends up funneling all of the conservative candidates down to the most extreme bastion of conservative, anti-PC sentiment (Trump), and then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

THIS shit is precisely why moderates (who actually try to see the common ground, and look at the best of both worlds objectively), can NEVER win elections! They get slaughtered in their own primaries every damn time (and why not because I'M VOTING FOR THE CHAMPION OF MY OWN PERSONAL VALUES, DAMMIT! FUCK COMPROMISE!!!) Also, we love our whole "red vs. blue" maps on election night. It's just so fun to watch!

Simply put, there shouldn't BE primaries. There shouldn't even be two parties. Instead, it should just be an open ballot. You could then have waves of elimination from the pool AS A WHOLE (regardless of party). The election night ballot should contain, at minimum, the top 10 candidates, and then let the cards fall as they will (so no matter what controversy stirs, you still have some decent candidates in the pool). Granted, I realize this would be much more boring to watch on election night television, but our nation is going to utterly rip itself apart down the middle if we keep doing what we're doing.

TL;DR - The entire concept of 2-party "Primaries" is killing us. It's filtering out all of the "moderates" who objectively see the best of both sides of the argument, so they have zero chance in hell of ever winning anything (even though they'd objectively be the best overall for the job).
---

shipwreckers posted...

then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

You had a really bad read on Hillary.

I completely agree. The two party system has ruined this country, and it's why I always vote third party. I'm not taking part in the sham, but I still want my voice heard.
---

BADoglick posted...

I completely agree. The two party system has ruined this country, and it's why I always vote third party. I'm not taking part in the sham, but I still want my voice heard.

Indeed, and if we could ditch that dated primary system altogether, you wouldn't HAVE to vote third party. You wouldn't be voting ANY "party" at that point. You'd just have a list of names to pick from (a broader one at that), and no matter how much shit gets stirred up late in the election, you still have more than just two hyper-polarized candidates to pick from.
---

The two-party system: on paper its function is minimize "radical fringe groups" but in practice all it does is maintain the status quo for the establishment and their corporate friends. If a truly good third alternative were allowed to grow, it'd certainly win. Tons of countries have 3+ major parties and all it means is coalitions are sometimes required. If anything, there are more checks and balances because it's easier to replace somebody when more options exist (because the vote is split in more directions). This leads to more accountability and compromise. The two-party system isn't a whole lot different from Great Britain and France deciding "fuck everyone else" during the 19th century and basically dividing up the planet and beating anyone that threatened them into submission by any means necessary.

People criticise places like the China with its one-party system, but America isn't a whole lot different in the sense that the Chinese Communist Party still has elections to determine who controls the party and their policies can be quite divergent from each other. The two-party system is an illusion of democracy to pacify the general population. Both still serve the 1% first and foremost, they just prioritize different sections and the GOP does a little more for them than the Democrats.
---

people keep thinking that the symptom is the disease.... tsk.
---

shipwreckers posted...

BADoglick posted...

I completely agree. The two party system has ruined this country, and it's why I always vote third party. I'm not taking part in the sham, but I still want my voice heard.

Indeed, and if we could ditch that dated primary system altogether, you wouldn't HAVE to vote third party. You wouldn't be voting ANY "party" at that point. You'd just have a list of names to pick from (a broader one at that), and no matter how much shit gets stirred up late in the election, you still have more than just two hyper-polarized candidates to pick from.

I would argue that this might actually encourage the election of even more extreme radicals.

Say there are 20 candidates to choose from. 19 of which are moderate, the remaining candidate being radical. If the winner received more than ~15% of the total vote, I'd consider that a landslide given that they won three times their fair share of votes.

It would not be hard whatsoever, especially in the US, for an absolute nutcase psychopath to gain 15% support. The crazies with extreme views would gravitate to that candidate, and the rest of normal society would have their vote split.

The ideal number of serious political parties is either 3 or 4. It's important that their ideologies have little overlap, otherwise votes just end up getting split.
---

You almost got to the root of the issue and then fell comically short like Homer Simpson jumping Springfield Gorge.

The problem is our voting system itself, "First Past the Post" where you only vote for one person, and whoever gets the most votes wins.
Such a system inevitably leads to a small group of parties (sometimes more than 2 if the base ideologies of the resulting behemoth factions fall the right way to allow for it, but usually just two). Because while having a representative that deviates a bit from what you really want is irritating...having someone with the exact opposite policy is downright frightening.
Once the dichotomy of the main parties is established and entrenched, they really don't have much reason to consider moderate positions. The voters in the middle are hostages to the limited choices and will probably just not bother to vote out of apathy at worst. Meanwhile, the die-hard crazies will turn out in droves when given treats.

What we need is a system where you can vote for as many people as you want. Then you're no longer ever "throwing your vote away" by voting 3rd party, and if a 3rd party candidate can appeal to a broad enough spectrum of people, he could win an election.
There are other issues, of course. Namely campaign funding and media/debate bias against 3rd parties (good luck raising small donations w/ no major party to support you and good luck getting on the debate stage to try and become known when the two parties literally control the debates and set the rules for entry).
But the voting system itself is the single biggest problem.

First Past the Post ist he real flaw. It actively makes sure that the people who don't vote, if they were to vote 3rd party, are never represented.
---

Grendel posted...

shipwreckers posted...

then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

You had a really bad read on Hillary.

She was trying to be the first female president. Obviously that means her entire platform was a SJW circlejerk.

The real issue is Hillary's emails.
---

faramir77 posted...

shipwreckers posted...

BADoglick posted...

I completely agree. The two party system has ruined this country, and it's why I always vote third party. I'm not taking part in the sham, but I still want my voice heard.

Indeed, and if we could ditch that dated primary system altogether, you wouldn't HAVE to vote third party. You wouldn't be voting ANY "party" at that point. You'd just have a list of names to pick from (a broader one at that), and no matter how much shit gets stirred up late in the election, you still have more than just two hyper-polarized candidates to pick from.

I would argue that this might actually encourage the election of even more extreme radicals.

Say there are 20 candidates to choose from. 19 of which are moderate, the remaining candidate being radical. If the winner received more than ~15% of the total vote, I'd consider that a landslide given that they won three times their fair share of votes.

It would not be hard whatsoever, especially in the US, for an absolute nutcase psychopath to gain 15% support. The crazies with extreme views would gravitate to that candidate, and the rest of normal society would have their vote split.

The ideal number of serious political parties is either 3 or 4. It's important that their ideologies have little overlap, otherwise votes just end up getting split.

But the frustratingly dangerous part of "party-based" systems is that the champions of ideological value often end up being full of shit (just like we saw with both Trump and Hillary). So, in this current system, once you get past the primaries, the damage is already done. You could be stuck with Satan incarnate, but the other better candidates have already been cut at that point.

The votes can be split however fate dictates. That's the point. Let fate dictate it rather than funneling yourself into extreme polar opposites (like we've been doing). If those candidates that had already been cut from last election's primaries were somehow re-introduced to the race (e.g. Bernie Sanders for Democrats or Ted Cruz for Republicans) Hillary and Trump would have ZERO chance of edging out a win with all their controversy and lack of credibility late-election. They were both despised by so much of the general public. People would have taken ANYONE over them.

Late-election controversies are common (as mudslinging hits its climax). A wider pool of candidates ensures that there is someone to fall back on when bullshit is exposed. We don't have that luxury in the US in the current system.
---

Literally nothing can be done about the primary system and getting rid of parties might just make things worse.

shipwreckers posted...

THIS shit is precisely why moderates (who actually try to see the common ground, and look at the best of both worlds objectively), can NEVER win elections! They get slaughtered in their own primaries every damn time (and why not because I'M VOTING FOR THE CHAMPION OF MY OWN PERSONAL VALUES, DAMMIT! FUCK COMPROMISE!!!) Also, we love our whole "red vs. blue" maps on election night. It's just so fun to watch!

Mitt Romney disproves this idea. Plus John McCain was, at the time anyway, reasonably moderate.

shipwreckers posted...

So, this "Primary" system ends up funneling all of the conservative candidates down to the most extreme bastion of conservative, anti-PC sentiment (Trump), and then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

Actually, neither Trump nor Hillary were the most extreme among their base. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul make Trump look like Hillary and, on the left, Bernie Sanders made Hillary look like Kasich (well...). Keep in mind that Cruz's big tax change policy plan involved dismantling the IRS.

Other than Jim Webb, pretty much every DNC candidate was virtue-signaling pretty hard on everything. Kasich and Bush were reasonably moderate on the Republican side; Bush did well in early polling while Kasich finally secured an okay portion of the vote after nearly everybody else dropped out.

shipwreckers posted...

Simply put, there shouldn't BE primaries. There shouldn't even be two parties. Instead, it should just be an open ballot. You could then have waves of elimination from the pool AS A WHOLE (regardless of party). The election night ballot should contain, at minimum, the top 10 candidates, and then let the cards fall as they will (so no matter what controversy stirs, you still have some decent candidates in the pool). Granted, I realize this would be much more boring to watch on election night television, but our nation is going to utterly rip itself apart down the middle if we keep doing what we're doing.

That's a stupid idea.

Grendel posted...

shipwreckers posted...

then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

You had a really bad read on Hillary.

To be fair, she was the furthest on some SJW issues. She was also by far the most opposed to gun rights.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

People criticise places like the China with its one-party system, but America isn't a whole lot different in the sense that the Chinese Communist Party still has elections to determine who controls the party and their policies can be quite divergent from each other. The two-party system is an illusion of democracy to pacify the general population. Both still serve the 1% first and foremost, they just prioritize different sections and the GOP does a little more for them than the Democrats.

Multiple party systems are still an improvement over one-party systems. Citizens have dramatically more say in a multiple party system. Of course, more than two viable parties would be a help but you'd need to change how votes are counted to encourage a switch.
---

The problem with the electoral college is the winner-take-all shit.
---

Zeus posted...

shipwreckers posted...

Simply put, there shouldn't BE primaries. There shouldn't even be two parties. Instead, it should just be an open ballot. You could then have waves of elimination from the pool AS A WHOLE (regardless of party). The election night ballot should contain, at minimum, the top 10 candidates, and then let the cards fall as they will (so no matter what controversy stirs, you still have some decent candidates in the pool). Granted, I realize this would be much more boring to watch on election night television, but our nation is going to utterly rip itself apart down the middle if we keep doing what we're doing.

That's a stupid idea.

Finding the magic number of candidates would take some finesse, but no amount of justification can excuse this hyper-polarized two-party setup which plays to extremes. The objectively open-minded, balanced, and logical candidates simply CANNOT win with this current system, ever. Worst of all, when bullshit is exposed in the final nominees (as was the case with BOTH candidates in this last election), it's too late to do anything about it.

So, stupid or not, we've got to find some alternative to what we're doing, or we're going to rip ourselves apart completely. This isn't my conjecture, it's ALREADY HAPPENING (and it's quite painful to watch, really).
---

_AdjI_ posted...

Grendel posted...

shipwreckers posted...

then equally funnels all of the liberal candidates down to the most extreme warrior for hyper-PC, social-justice liberalism (Hillary).

You had a really bad read on Hillary.

She was trying to be the first female president. Obviously that means her entire platform was a SJW circlejerk.

I must have somehow overlooked this post earlier...

Honestly, considering the whole female gender pull in her favor (in ADDITION to her intensely "progressive" views on most issues), it just solidifies how much she was actually detested by the general population. She had pretty much every progressive sociological pull one could ask for in politics (from identity politics, to women's rights, to immigration rights), and she still couldn't beat her opponent (that opponent being Trump, of all people). The email controversy was bad, but no worse than Trump's "Grab her by the pussy" controversy (which was equally bad, ESPECIALLY with women). I should also note that women have had a historically higher percent voter turnout over men for several decades.
[SOURCE] http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf

Controversies can certainly sway some votes, but ideology has a deeper plant in people's minds (to the point that many of Hillary's and Trump's supporters' minds were already made up from the start.) It's why people defended Bill Clinton unconditionally back in the 90's, and why Trump supporters still TO THIS DAY defend him in spite of his absurd actions.

I mean, less than 30 seconds of Google searching will give you ample material on the hyper-progressive views of Hillary. Chalking her entire platform up to to that "first female president" appeal is way too over-simplistic.
---

One good thing about PotD is that you're pretty much guaranteed to find a Devil's Advocate argument from pretty much any subject matter. This was no exception.
---

shipwreckers posted...

Zeus posted...

shipwreckers posted...

Simply put, there shouldn't BE primaries. There shouldn't even be two parties. Instead, it should just be an open ballot. You could then have waves of elimination from the pool AS A WHOLE (regardless of party). The election night ballot should contain, at minimum, the top 10 candidates, and then let the cards fall as they will (so no matter what controversy stirs, you still have some decent candidates in the pool). Granted, I realize this would be much more boring to watch on election night television, but our nation is going to utterly rip itself apart down the middle if we keep doing what we're doing.

That's a stupid idea.

Finding the magic number of candidates would take some finesse, but no amount of justification can excuse this hyper-polarized two-party setup which plays to extremes. The objectively open-minded, balanced, and logical candidates simply CANNOT win with this current system, ever. Worst of all, when bullshit is exposed in the final nominees (as was the case with BOTH candidates in this last election), it's too late to do anything about it.

So, stupid or not, we've got to find some alternative to what we're doing, or we're going to rip ourselves apart completely. This isn't my conjecture, it's ALREADY HAPPENING (and it's quite painful to watch, really).

Again, the fact that Mitt Romney won the GOP candidacy in 2012 disproves your claims. While you might be able to write off Hillary because there weren't more moderate candidates in the race (besides Jim Webb), Romney was a strongly left-leaning candidate whose previous healthcare policy is credited as inspiring the ACA.

Otherwise with the current voting system, you'd inevitably wind up with two major parties (whether or not the government recognizes them) and the race would ultimately come down to two candidates. Especially because the US *started* with no parties and quickly gained them.
---

Zeus posted...

Otherwise with the current voting system, you'd inevitably wind up with two major parties (whether or not the government recognizes them) and the race would ultimately come down to two candidates. Especially because the US *started* with no parties and quickly gained them.

Interestingly enough, George Washington HATED the idea of political parties. There's always going to be a couple top dogs who dominate, but by bottlenecking yourself into ONLY two candidates (no matter how completely, utterly full of shit they turn out right before election day), you then have zero fall back when the proverbial poo hits the fan. Mudslinging hits its biggest stride late in the election, and that's often when people try to play their strongest controversial cards against opponents.

By removing the Primaries phase of the election, you're less likely to get stuck with shitty candidates (since you'd maintain a wider pool). Should all credibility in your favorite candidate get shot to hell, you could then simply shift your preference a couple spots down the (wider) ballot. It's not that absurd or unreasonable to widen said ballot.
---

From what I can tell the only reason you would prefer a representative representing big elections over direct democracy is if you really enjoy rounding errors.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3M4br46s7A
---

The best system is to have multiple rounds like a tournament. The top 16 get to round 2, top 8 make round 3, top 4 make round 4 (these votes are done on the government website with each party allowed to upload their party's description and policies). These 4 candidates then get invited on to national tv for a debate which leads to a 4 party standard election without electoral college.
---

The real issue is - Voters didn't want either candidate to win. Instead of casting votes for someone they like the only option was to vote against the person they hated/feared the most.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The real issue is - Voters didn't want either candidate to win. Instead of casting votes for someone they like the only option was to vote against the person they hated/feared the most.

You're 100% correct, but wouldn't widening the ballot pool alleviate that problem? The more options you have, the less chance (statistically speaking) you are to get stuck with piss-poor candidates. Also, locking candidates into parties just makes a horribly polarizing situation even worse.
---

if a primary candidate got so bad people dont want to vote for them then they dont have to. they could write in someone who lost in the primaries.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if a primary candidate got so bad people dont want to vote for them then they dont have to. they could write in someone who lost in the primaries.

Let's be real here. Write ins have an even lesser chance of winning or effecting change than third-party candidates (which have practically zero chance already, just look at the election stats from the past dozen elections).

All those people who "protested" by wasting their votes on third parties and write ins are like the people that think they can put McDonalds out of business by only eating at their local diner.
---

I don't think any rational human being would consider themselves a Democrat or Republican

shipwreckers posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The real issue is - Voters didn't want either candidate to win. Instead of casting votes for someone they like the only option was to vote against the person they hated/feared the most.

You're 100% correct, but wouldn't widening the ballot pool alleviate that problem?

No.
Again, do you even know what voting system we use? You only get to vote for one candidate. That means if, for example, you have four liberal-leaning politicians each getting roughly 15% of the votes and then one conservative-leaning politician getting 20% of the vote plus another two each getting 10%...someone just won w/ only 20% of the votes and even worse...60% of voters wanted a liberal-leaning politician and yet the conservative won.
Not only is more valid candidates not helpful...the side with more valid options is at a disadvantage!

Your ideas are bad and would just make things worse, because for some strange reason you apparently are tuning out every response mentioning First Past the Post.

streamofthesky posted...

Again, do you even know what voting system we use?

Great way to start your post. Personal jabs always turn out well in these discussions! Yes, I know what system we use. I also know what FPTP is (it's a pretty simple concept).

You only get to vote for one candidate. That means if, for example, you have four liberal-leaning politicians each getting roughly 15% of the votes and then one conservative-leaning politician getting 20% of the vote plus another two each getting 10%...someone just won w/ only 20% of the votes and even worse...60% of voters wanted a liberal-leaning politician and yet the conservative won.
Not only is more valid candidates not helpful...the side with more valid options is at a disadvantage!

As for the math, you're absolutely correct that less options on your "side" is an advantage. So, you have two reasonable approaches where a wide ballot pool can work. Either 1) Ditch FPTP altogether, and let people pick multiple candidates from the pool (e.g. their "top 3" preferences. This is PRECISELY what you were suggesting in your earlier post. That's a legit suggestion.), or 2) keep FPTP but make sure the wider pool remains even between sides (3 vs. 3 / 5 vs. 5 / etc.) Both of those approaches could fully get the job done. This idea is NOT as absurd as you're making it out to be.

So, I get the math entirely, but you're still missing the best point of ditching the whole "primary phase." The "sides" as you call it wouldn't be so distinctly-defined anymore with what I'm actually trying to suggest here. It's the damn primaries that polarize these candidates into "sides" in the first place. Also, if you remove the polarization of sides from the start (again, giving moderates an actual chance in hell of competing), it will alleviate much of that division, so people won't feel forced into any affiliation anymore just because of some arbitrary party label. A candidate would just be a candidate (no party, at least not "officially speaking").

Your ideas are bad and would just make things worse, because for some strange reason you apparently are tuning out every response mentioning First Past the Post.

The ideas are only bad if you absolutely refuse to budge on any of the current electoral process (again, see those options earlier in the post). What we have now is flat-out broken and flawed (to the point that the worst candidates imaginable can scam their way to the final nomination, and there's not a DAMN thing we can do about it at that point!) Sticking with THAT method is a "bad idea."

The "primary" system is going to keep dividing our country more and more each time. With each round the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other with even more force. We're already seeing riots and violent protests as it is. That's only going to get WORSE if we keep doing what we're doing (again, this isn't just my conjecture here, we're already seeing it happen!!!).

TL;DR - You've gotta understand, we're not talking about a "slight tweak" here. As I said earlier, this would take some finesse, and we'd be re-working the process from the ground up. But in order to stop the pendulum swing and its ever-increasing division, it's worth it!
---

shipwreckers posted...

You're 100% correct, but wouldn't widening the ballot pool alleviate that problem?

If anything it shows how the political parties are out of touch with other voters. I don't think the answer is more of the same.
---